Abortion Discussion

[redleghunter]

What justifies punishing the rape victim twice? What justifies involuntary servitude?

Why do the noncombatants in the hospital deserve to be bombed to death for the heinous crimes of the terrorists holed up in the hospital?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is your definition of "fully human."

I really don't have one. But then so far no anti-abortionist has been able to defend their beliefs. I stated quite clearly that I had none and therefore would not tell women what they had to do with their bodies. Since you want to tell others what they do with their bodies the burden of proof is upon you.

Do you understand this? There are claims that I make that I am willing to support with evidence. Here I "win" simply because the other side cannot justify the changes that they want to institute.

 

[redleghunter]

This is pasted from Section IX, of the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade:

"All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html

At least in the context of abortion, the unborn are not persons with 14th Amendment Constitutional rights. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think this precludes a state from considering a fetus as a person in other situations. Like if a pregnant woman is assaulted, and suffers a miscarriage as a result, a state can bring a homicide (I think feticide might be a better term) charge against the perp. But a properly done abortion, to which she gives consent, is not a crime. I can understand how this may seem contradictory, but nothing says that every law in all jurisdictions must be perfectly consistent.

You just gave the court's ruling on what constitutes a Constitutional person.

A legal person is one who can buy or sell property, legally enter into contracts. Which means an 11 year old is not a legal person but a corporation is.

That's why I ask that question often as these definitions are tossed about.

 

[redleghunter]

God aborts something like 65-80% of pregnancies. Calling abortion wrong is calling God a sinner. If that is the case then Christianity makes no sense. We are called to be holy as He is holy so the question isn't is abortion wrong, it can't be because God does it, but what percentage of pregnancies should a woman abort to meet God's standard of holiness. One cannot be a Christian and be against abortion.

Perhaps as a fan of Dr. Paul you may want to look at his views on the matter:

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

 

[redleghunter]

I really don't have one. But then so far no anti-abortionist has been able to defend their beliefs. I stated quite clearly that I had none and therefore would not tell women what they had to do with their bodies. Since you want to tell others what they do with their bodies the burden of proof is upon you.

Do you understand this? There are claims that I make that I am willing to support with evidence. Here I "win" simply because the other side cannot justify the changes that they want to institute.

You must have missed the volumes of posts where Christians clearly define their positions that human life begins at conception. As such this newly created and distinct human life must be protected.

Dr. Paul a libertarian said it best:

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

 

[Subduction Zone]

You must have missed the volumes of posts where Christians clearly define their positions that human life begins at conception. As such this newly created and distinct human life must be protected.

Dr. Paul a libertarian said it best:

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

They can define it that way, but they cannot justify that definition. And I don't hold Ron Paul in very high regard at all.

 

[redleghunter]

They can define it that way, but they cannot justify that definition. And I don't hold Ron Paul in very high regard at all.

The pro life view can be defined. It is very easy to find scientific evidence that at conception a new human life is created.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The pro life view can be defined. It is very easy to find scientific evidence that at conception a new human life is created.

The problem is that you use an equivocation error to make your case. That is also why you lose. I am trying to point out the weaknesses in your arguments. If you want to change the law you have to do it in an appropriate manner. Majority rule isn not the "law of the land". Minority rights are key too. You need to be able to justify the changes you want and so far you have not been able to.

 

[tiglathpileser]

It's not a baby:

ba·by
ˈbābē/
noun

1. 1.
   a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
   "his wife's just had a baby"
   synonyms: infant, newborn, child, tot, little one; More

The idea of a first trimester fetus being "innocent" of anything is silly. A first trimester fetus has no mechanism to be "innocent" or "guilty" of anything. It's just one more case of emotional rhetoric.

In the US, this is not the case at all. Wider availability to birth control and comprehensive sex education has seen a steady drop in teen pregnancy since 1990.

Hallo Todd. I did not ask for your opinion as there are a hundred more out there which one could justify depending on your worldview. What I did was to state the words of prominent abortionists who saw the outcome of their work. This is particularly relevant when the abortion is botched and a live baby is born and then turfed into a bin to die. A live baby is a live baby regardless what a dictionary says.

We are not talking about a first trimester baby. We are talking about abortion and as every abortion kills a baby according to the experts, that baby is innocent of any crime to deserve such a death.

I was not talking about the USA. I was talking about the country I live in and where I served on a committee advising the government.

 

[tiglathpileser]

I spent half a night once talking someone out of suicide have you?

It may be a common argument but is jumping to conclusions that people who use it favor abortion a good thing?

As a teacher I prevented two suicides by students.

 

[tiglathpileser]

As scripture states: all laws are from God. That is all folks!

So the law that legalised abortion in the USA was from God?

 

[tiglathpileser]

Most abortions are preformed in the first trimester of pregnancy. A heart beat does not determine life. If it did there would be no such thing as heart transplants today. Arms fingers toes also are no indication of life . Brain activity scientifically determines life and a fetus has none until close to five months of pregnancy. Therefore it is not alive, a person, or a baby, and it cannot be murdered or killed since it is not alive. There you go. It's very simple really. Truth and facts never did sit well with you anti abortion people who even want to force rape victims to have children by their rapists while then calling yourselves Christians. Disgusting and ungodly anyway you look at it. Go figure... BTW, God will never allow the law to be changed on abortions until rape, incest, and other rare medical conditions are accepted as reasons to have an abortion. As scripture states: all laws are from God. That is all folks!

The Bible never specifically addresses the issue of abortion. However, there are numerous teachings in Scripture that make it abundantly clear what God’s view of abortion is. Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us before He forms us in the womb. Psalm 139:13-16 speaks of God’s active role in our creation and formation in the womb. Exodus 21:22-25 prescribes the same penalty—death—for someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb as for someone who commits murder. This clearly indicates that God considers a baby in the womb to be as human as a full-grown adult. For the Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman’s right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6)

 

[tiglathpileser]

Most abortions are preformed in the first trimester of pregnancy. A heart beat does not determine life. If it did there would be no such thing as heart transplants today. Arms fingers toes also are no indication of life . Brain activity scientifically determines life and a fetus has none until close to five months of pregnancy. Therefore it is not alive, a person, or a baby, and it cannot be murdered or killed since it is not alive. There you go. It's very simple really. Truth and facts never did sit well with you anti abortion people who even want to force rape victims to have children by their rapists while then calling yourselves Christians. Disgusting and ungodly anyway you look at it. Go figure... BTW, God will never allow the law to be changed on abortions until rape, incest, and other rare medical conditions are accepted as reasons to have an abortion. As scripture states: all laws are from God. That is all folks!

Donna J. Harrison, MD, president of the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, argues that if the prenatal being "is nourished and protected, it will proceed uninterrupted through the developmental stages of embryo, fetus, newborn, toddler, child, teen, adult and aged adult: one continuous existence... The real argument in the abortion debate is whether or not this human being is a 'person,' with all the...protections of 'personhood.'" She compares the exclusion of prenatal beings from personhood to the exclusion of African-Americans. Other pro-lifers connect the exclusion of prenatal life forms from personhood to the exclusion of other groups, such as women, Latino/as, Native Americans, people with disabilities, LGBT (lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgendered) persons, the poor, and death row prisoners.

 

[tiglathpileser]

This is what Ron Paul, A libertarian said.....

However, a rational evaluation of abortion must be built upon one single question: When exactly does human life begin? At conception, at birth or somewhere in between?

Not even the most radical feminist would find it okay to tear apart a recently-born baby just because it is not wanted by its mother. All other considerations aside, the only reason many individuals can support abortion with a good conscience is because they believe it’s not murder… and that unborn babies do not count as human beings.

Recalling his personal observation of a late-term abortion performed by one of his instructors during his medical residency, Ron Paul stated, “It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”

In addition he said.....

During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Ron Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, “If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?” Additionally, Ron Paul said that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is “an act of aggression” against a fetus.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

As soon as you point out the truth about the life of the unborn, they simply move to the "yeah? Well what about rape" question. But even if you granted them abortion in the case of rape, and incest, and the life of the mother, they'd jump to another objection. The so-called prochoice crowd jumps all over the place in these discussion. And they drag along plenty of false information with them.

I'm pretty sure that is called moving the goalposts...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hallo Todd. I did not ask for your opinion as there are a hundred more out there which one could justify depending on your worldview. What I did was to state the words of prominent abortionists who saw the outcome of their work. This is particularly relevant when the abortion is botched and a live baby is born and then turfed into a bin to die. A live baby is a live baby regardless what a dictionary says.

We are not talking about a first trimester baby. We are talking about abortion and as every abortion kills a baby according to the experts, that baby is innocent of any crime to deserve such a death.

I was not talking about the USA. I was talking about the country I live in and where I served on a committee advising the government.

A fetus at any stage is not a baby. You just performed an equivocation fallacy.

If you want to make that claim about fetuses the burden of proof is upon you. You are not going to get any changes in the laws until someone does so from your side.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm pretty sure that is called moving the goalposts...

No, what Papazoom just did was a strawman argument. Moving the goal posts is an error that creationists do. Now someone may point out the injustice of making a rape victim birth the child of her attacker, but that is not why they advocate that person's right to an abortion. That was merely an appeal to emotions, it was not moving the goal posts. They are not arguing that a fetus from a rape is less human than a human from consensual sex.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the law that legalised abortion in the USA was from God?

It could be legitimately argued that that is the case. Look at how the Bible says that slaves are supposed to love their masters and work happily. The Bible makes some pretty crazy claims about authority. That one is supposed to obey the government seems to be one of them.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

No, what Papazoom just did was a strawman argument. Moving the goal posts is an error that creationists do. Now someone may point out the injustice of making a rape victim birth the child of her attacker, but that is not why they advocate that person's right to an abortion. That was merely an appeal to emotions, it was not moving the goal posts. They are not arguing that a fetus from a rape is less human than a human from consensual sex.

Maybe you should go back and read all the other recent abortion threads and you'll see what is being referred to...

 

[PapaZoom]

I'm pretty sure that is called moving the goalposts...

What's really funny to me is how many pro choicers use old and long ago debunked arguments. "It's just a blob of tissue" is one such stupid statement some make. It's actually worse than stupid. With all we know from advanced technology you'd think they know better. Even the single cell zygote is complex and carries more information than most people realize. As one person put it:

The zygote carries within its single cell continuing threads in the immemorial lifespan of the human race, as well as the mixed-and-matched microscopic material from which will stem the intricacies common to all human bodies, yet with the remarkable uniqueness of a particular person.

My daughter showed her friend a picture of her 8th week of pregnancy. Her friend was shocked. She had had an abortion at around her 8th week and was told it wasn't a baby, it was just a blob of tissue. But she was looking at what look very much like a baby. Arms, legs, head, full body. Still the choicers insist it's a blob of tissue.

Those that persist in that are not rational. They clearly don't care about the facts. If you can convince them they are wrong, then it's "Well, it may not be just a blob of tissue. But it's not a person and it can't feel pain!"